Politics

[375 Ruger Fan]

 

[skydiver386]

We can't send them back. The only group that could would be new, largely secular leadership. If that does not emerge, then defanging them for a number of years will have to suffice until we have to do it again.

Mark Halperin (far from a right winger) had a very astute observation on Two-Way this morning that I think captures what I was trying to say in my posting above.

“You can criticize this 100 ways to Sunday, but if the metric of success… was to do as much as possible to degrade Iran’s capabilities — naval, missile, nuclear, command and control, terror — with as little cost and blood and treasure as possible, if he stopped today, he would have succeeded more than every other president combined.”

The metric of success is clearly wrong, and specifically what I have issue with.

You are not going to defang Iran for any real length of time.

Degrading their economy, navy, air and missile forces, nuclear, command and control, etc , are nothing more than a short term shiny distraction. Iran doesn't need these things to achieve it's goals, which is what this administration and most military planners don't seem to comprehend. It is not their goal to wield political, economic, or military power in the traditional sense.

Iran, and most Asians, already know the western mind does not think long term, but instead concentrates on 24 hour media and 4 year election cycles. We are going to think our little 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign put the genie back in the bottle, we'll go back to watching the ball game and debating the latest microbrewery.

Meanwhile this regime has survival as it's main goal, knowing once we finish beating our chest, and the bombing stops, they'll pick up the pieces and drive on with what they were doing. Funding for Islamic terrorist cells will resume almost immediately. Persistence will eventually pay off in a nuclear armed Iran, and at that point another 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign won't be possible.

In the old story of the tortoise and the hare, the hare is going to win.

 

[pilar]

Reading the last two weeks of this thread and all this talk of petrol, fertilizer and food got me to wondering when that 30 tons of NH4NO3 will unfortunately turn back up.

Over 60,000 Pounds Of Ammonium Nitrate Goes Missing From Train - Jalopnik

Thirty tons of a potentially explosive chemical went missing from a sealed train car in April, and no one has any clue where it went.

www.jalopnik.com

That is just a rain drop in the ocean of agricultural products
My buddies uncle raises cotton and Milo dry land and right now has ammonium nitrate
For his 3000 acres and enough diesel on hand to make a pretty damn big bomb
I personally don’t think a lost box car load from 2023 is a problem
(
To cover 3,000 acres of land with ammonium nitrate (typically 34-0-0) for agricultural purposes, the total amount needed ranges from roughly
300,000 to 450,000 pounds (150 to 225 tons), based on typical application rates of 100 to 150 lbs per acre. )

 

[skydiver386]

No different than Somalia, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar, etc..

It is sadly not unusual or uncommon for despot Muslim governments to weaponize food against their own populations.

You forgot North Korea.

 

[Betterinthebush]

That is just a rain drop in the ocean of agricultural products
My buddies uncle raises cotton and Milo dry land and right now has ammonium nitrate
For his 3000 acres and enough diesel on hand to make a pretty damn big bomb
I personally don’t think a lost box car load from 2023 is a problem
(
To cover 3,000 acres of land with ammonium nitrate (typically 34-0-0) for agricultural purposes, the total amount needed ranges from roughly
300,000 to 450,000 pounds (150 to 225 tons), based on typical application rates of 100 to 150 lbs per acre. )

Whew..! That’s good news.

 

[wesheltonj]

I suspect shortly, we will be selectively airdropping firearms into Iran. That's the only way to get rid of the government. When I see the trucks leaving Camp Stanley/Midwest Depot, I will know for sure.

 

[spike.t]

 

[Red Leg]

The metric of success is clearly wrong, and specifically what I have issue with.

You are not going to defang Iran for any real length of time.

Degrading their economy, navy, air and missile forces, nuclear, command and control, etc , are nothing more than a short term shiny distraction. Iran doesn't need these things to achieve it's goals, which is what this administration and most military planners don't seem to comprehend. It is not their goal to wield political, economic, or military power in the traditional sense.

Iran, and most Asians, already know the western mind does not think long term, but instead concentrates on 24 hour media and 4 year election cycles. We are going to think our little 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign put the genie back in the bottle, we'll go back to watching the ball game and debating the latest microbrewery.

Meanwhile this regime has survival as it's main goal, knowing once we finish beating our chest, and the bombing stops, they'll pick up the pieces and drive on with what they were doing. Funding for Islamic terrorist cells will resume almost immediately. Persistence will eventually pay off in a nuclear armed Iran, and at that point another 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign won't be possible.

In the old story of the tortoise and the hare, the hare is going to win.

You and I have two very different understandings of Islamic culture generally or Persian and Arab culture specifically. I see nothing in Islamic history, Suni or Shia, that illustrates a cultural tendency to practice long term strategy. Indeed, it has been my observation that the people of the Middle East (unlike some cultures of the Far East), even setting aside broad cultural differences within it, are by Western standards extremely reactionary, emotional, and volatile. The reactive lashing out at Arab neighbors when Iran had the strategic possibility to separate them from a US - Israeli military campaign is a good current example.

In fact, were one to look at anti-Western Islamic strategy since WWII - I think we can safely set aside the 7th and 8th century Arab conquests, the crusades, and the Turkish invasion of Europe - what we have is a kaleidoscope of periodically vicious actions followed by crushing defeats. Say what one will about our "failure" in Afghanistan, our support of Israel, or our air campaign in Syria, neither Al Qaeda, nor ISIS, nor the PLO, nor HAMAS represent much of a threat to the West currently or likely will in the foreseeable future. Their demise was largely very much kinetic.

So yes, once we smash Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, their weaponry, and their current capacity to build more, then I am confident, as I stated above, they will not reemerge a real regional threat for a decade or more. With respect to fomenting regional proxies, and assuming the new government remains intransigent (it is indeed new simply because of all the empty chairs), they already have a broken economy, and will have very hard choices where to spend their very limited revenue. If you aren't aware, as of this afternoon it takes 1,321,775 Iranian Rials to buy a single US dollar - yes 1.3 million. That is very nearly a Zimbabwean economic collapse regardless how much oil they may have.

Finally, the region picked very clear sides during this operation. I find it extremely unlikely that any Gulf States will do anything other than more fully arm themselves with the latest US technology to further bolster their militaries against their Shia Persian neighbor.

And what alternative would you suggest? Should we have attempted an invasion? Iran is four times larger than Iraq and much of it not conducive to mobile armored warfare. It has a population of nearly 100 million people. It would take half a million US troops to try and subdue it and that does account for long term stability operations. We frankly do not have an active force sufficiently structured for such an undertaking. You can imagine the hue and cry were we to try an activate three or four of our National Guard divisions to fill out such an operation and our other requirements.

Unless you see a third one, the other alternative was to allow the Iranians to build their nukes and their intercontinental delivery systems. I have a hard time making any sort of case it would be in our interests to support that alternative.

 

[spike.t]

Another video on how things have changed drastically....can you imagine a school giving a 8 or 9 year old a razor sharp chisel etc in this day and age.....would be a shitstorm.... ....the health and safety crew would be apoplectic...

 

[barryk]

I suspect shortly, we will be selectively airdropping firearms into Iran. That's the only way to get rid of the government. When I see the trucks leaving Camp Stanley/Midwest Depot, I will know for sure.

How is that done to ensure the weapons don't end up in the wrong hands? I agree....would rather see Iranians fight for their own regime change but wonder about the process of exchanging pitchforks for rifles.

 

[CoElkHunter]

As I feared, this war is going to change NOTHING internally in Iran. Sure, the faces will change, but the song remains the same. We need to stop telling unarmed people to rise up against a Government that has no problem shooting thousands of it's own citizens.

Mark my words, this War will NOT be won from 30,000ft.

This War will NOT be won by taking away the weapons or money from the current regime.

This War will NOT be won by a Brigade of Israeli or American Airborne troops dropped on Tehran.

By Won I mean the entire Government structure wiped out, the IRGC and it's subordinate militia forces eliminated. Anything less will show that the Islamic State of Iran was able to withstand the best the Zionists and the Great Satan could throw at them. The radicals will only be emboldened, and it will become even worse for the people of Iran.

It's also a safe bet both the Chinese and Russians are very closely studying our TTPs, and will soon attempt to develop countermeasures. If the Islamic Republic is allowed to remain, we'll not only have shot our bolt, but shown our cards.

This War will only be won when large swathes of the Iranian population are willing to take up arms and fight for their freedom.

There are two main ways this may be possible.

1. Crown Prince Pahlavi form's an armed Militia to topple the Islamic Republic.

2. Allied States in the region supply weapons and training to Iranian dissidents.

I fully understand that introducing an armed group into Iran will mean Civil War and a possible bloodbath, but that has already been the case, and is likely to be inevitable anyway.

Arm the People of Iran and let them do the job.

I agree. Choice #2 will be needed. Should’ve been done a couple of insurrections ago. I would also encourage the Iranian Kurds to mass in great numbers in preparation for an attack to draw out the IRGC in large numbers. Our B52s, B1s and additional assets would then bomb the amassed IRGC with cluster bombs and destroy them. That’s what Israel did to Hezbollah awhile back. Feinting an attack and destroyed Hezbollah troops and battlefield leadership. It might work?

 

[CoElkHunter]

The metric of success is clearly wrong, and specifically what I have issue with.

You are not going to defang Iran for any real length of time.

Degrading their economy, navy, air and missile forces, nuclear, command and control, etc , are nothing more than a short term shiny distraction. Iran doesn't need these things to achieve it's goals, which is what this administration and most military planners don't seem to comprehend. It is not their goal to wield political, economic, or military power in the traditional sense.

Iran, and most Asians, already know the western mind does not think long term, but instead concentrates on 24 hour media and 4 year election cycles. We are going to think our little 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign put the genie back in the bottle, we'll go back to watching the ball game and debating the latest microbrewery.

Meanwhile this regime has survival as it's main goal, knowing once we finish beating our chest, and the bombing stops, they'll pick up the pieces and drive on with what they were doing. Funding for Islamic terrorist cells will resume almost immediately. Persistence will eventually pay off in a nuclear armed Iran, and at that point another 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign won't be possible.

In the old story of the tortoise and the hare, the hare is going to win.

You are a wise man Skydiver and I hate to say it but you’re right. Until the Iranian people are armed and fight the regime from the inside, Iran’s regime will survive. Unless we decide to place thousands of troops on the ground I don’t believe air/sea power alone will destroy Iran’s regime. They don’t care about the Iranian people’s suffering. The regime’s goal is to survive no matter the consequences. Just my two centavos.

 

[mark-hunter]

Meanwhile, on EU economic front:

 

[spike.t]

Attacking oil installations around the gulf...

Attacks reported on three more cargo ships in Gulf, with oil price back near $100 - follow live

The oil price rise comes despite 32 countries agreeing yesterday to release 400 million barrels of oil reserves. On Wednesday, President Trump insisted the price would come down.

www.bbc.com

 

[spike.t]

Fkn Chinese surveillance systems....

‘Invasive’ AI-led mass surveillance in Africa violating freedoms, warn experts | Global development | The Guardian https://share.google/gW9Oy5w2aIxg9Uri4

 

[Foxi]

You and I have two very different understandings of Islamic culture generally or Persian and Arab culture specifically. I see nothing in Islamic history, Suni or Shia, that illustrates a cultural tendency to practice long term strategy. Indeed, it has been my observation that the people of the Middle East (unlike some cultures of the Far East), even setting aside broad cultural differences within it, are by Western standards extremely reactionary, emotional, and volatile. The reactive lashing out at Arab neighbors when Iran had the strategic possibility to separate them from a US - Israeli military campaign is a good current example.

In fact, were one to look at anti-Western Islamic strategy since WWII - I think we can safely set aside the 7th and 8th century Arab conquests, the crusades, and the Turkish invasion of Europe - what we have is a kaleidoscope of periodically vicious actions followed by crushing defeats. Say what one will about our "failure" in Afghanistan, our support of Israel, or our air campaign in Syria, neither Al Qaeda, nor ISIS, nor the PLO, nor HAMAS represent much of a threat to the West currently or likely will in the foreseeable future. Their demise was largely very much kinetic.

So yes, once we smash Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, their weaponry, and their current capacity to build more, then I am confident, as I stated above, they will not reemerge a real regional threat for a decade or more. With respect to fomenting regional proxies, and assuming the new government remains intransigent (it is indeed new simply because of all the empty chairs), they already have a broken economy, and will have very hard choices where to spend their very limited revenue. If you aren't aware, as of this afternoon it takes 1,321,775 Iranian Rials to buy a single US dollar - yes 1.3 million. That is very nearly a Zimbabwean economic collapse regardless how much oil they may have.

Finally, the region picked very clear sides during this operation. I find it extremely unlikely that any Gulf States will do anything other than more fully arm themselves with the latest US technology to further bolster their militaries against their Shia Persian neighbor.

And what alternative would you suggest? Should we have attempted an invasion? Iran is four times larger than Iraq and much of it not conducive to mobile armored warfare. It has a population of nearly 100 million people. It would take half a million US troops to try and subdue it and that does account for long term stability operations. We frankly do not have an active force sufficiently structured for such an undertaking. You can imagine the hue and cry were we to try an activate three or four of our National Guard divisions to fill out such an operation and our other requirements.

Unless you see a third one, the other alternative was to allow the Iranians to build their nukes and their intercontinental delivery systems. I have a hard time making any sort of case it would be in our interests to support that alternative.

Your comments here are almost like an essay.
The idea that something like this could come from D.T. is actually unthinkable.
Get into politics already and don't waste any time.
Greetings from the mountains
Foxi

 

[skydiver386]

How is that done to ensure the weapons don't end up in the wrong hands? I agree....would rather see Iranians fight for their own regime change but wonder about the process of exchanging pitchforks for rifles.

Task Force Dagger - Special Forces - Afghanistan

A feature on the missions by US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) during Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan, 2001.

www.americanspecialops.com

 

[PARA45]

This is so wrong/scary in so many levels.

 

[Red Leg]

Task Force Dagger - Special Forces - Afghanistan

A feature on the missions by US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) during Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan, 2001.

www.americanspecialops.com

I agree. Choice #2 will be needed. Should’ve been done a couple of insurrections ago. I would also encourage the Iranian Kurds to mass in great numbers in preparation for an attack to draw out the IRGC in large numbers. Our B52s, B1s and additional assets would then bomb the amassed IRGC with cluster bombs and destroy them. That’s what Israel did to Hezbollah awhile back. Feinting an attack and destroyed Hezbollah troops and battlefield leadership. It might work?

They did a brilliant job. However, I do not see an analogy with respect to Iran. Who within that country represents the Northern Alliance, and what province of Iran do they occupy that makes insertion of special forces or weaponry remotely possible? I am all for arming an Iranian counterrevolutionary movement, but In Afghanistan, we could fly personnel and weaponry directly into areas controlled by already extant allied Afghani forces. No such alliance or safe area exists in Iran. Should such a force emerge, I am sure we would be delighted and supportive, but it is not there yet.

With respect to the Kurds, modern warfare is not conducted where the enemy offers massed targets for strategic bombers. We would not load up a B1 or B52 with cluster bombs thinking we would find such a target. The SF teams in Afghanistan were calling in pinpoint strikes using JDAMS against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The B52's were very useful because of their long loiter time over the potential target area - not because of the amount of bombs they could carry. Yes we could, likely would, provide air support to the Kurds, but I remain skeptical what they would accomplish.

The Kurds will also be problematic because they are not part of the Iranian population. They would represent a non-Iranian incursion. Yes that would tie up some IRGC and regular army units in the north, but the Kurds are not the sort of threat to the regime around which the Iranian population could rally - indeed they might be seen as an external threat around which the regime could rally the population to them instead.

 

[English]

The metric of success is clearly wrong, and specifically what I have issue with.

You are not going to defang Iran for any real length of time.

Degrading their economy, navy, air and missile forces, nuclear, command and control, etc , are nothing more than a short term shiny distraction. Iran doesn't need these things to achieve it's goals, which is what this administration and most military planners don't seem to comprehend. It is not their goal to wield political, economic, or military power in the traditional sense.

Iran, and most Asians, already know the western mind does not think long term, but instead concentrates on 24 hour media and 4 year election cycles. We are going to think our little 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign put the genie back in the bottle, we'll go back to watching the ball game and debating the latest microbrewery.

Meanwhile this regime has survival as it's main goal, knowing once we finish beating our chest, and the bombing stops, they'll pick up the pieces and drive on with what they were doing. Funding for Islamic terrorist cells will resume almost immediately. Persistence will eventually pay off in a nuclear armed Iran, and at that point another 12 Days of Christmas bombing campaign won't be possible.

In the old story of the tortoise and the hare, the hare is going to win.

However, they may try to claim it, IMHO undemocratic governments are not legitimate, representative, leaders of their peoples/countries. Just as Al Capone was not the legitimate leader of the people of Chicago.